James F. McGrath argues that [young-earth creationism and intelligent design are both blasphemous.] Part of the argument he puts forward in defense of this idea is that creation is a better witness to the creator's act than is scripture:
And while we're on the subject, anyone with literacy skills can write a book claiming to be by or about God or to reveal the truth. It is much harder to make a planet, or life, let alone a universe. And so, if one believes that there is a Creator and wants to get an appropriate sense of the majesty, power, wisdom and activity of that Creator, should one look to texts written by people (whether divinely inspired or not) or to the creation itself?
Jesus himself once used the same rhetorical device:
When Jesus saw their reaction he said, “Why do you respond with evil in your hearts? Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven’ or to say, ‘Stand up and walk’? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” – then he said to the paralytic – “Stand up, take your stretcher, and go home.” And he stood up and went home.
\~ Matthew 9:4-7, NET Bible
McGrath puts the "which is easier" question to good use here. It is difficult to draw an analogy between the interpretation of literature and the interpretation of empirical evidence. Yet the question remains for young-earth creationists remains, "if my reading of the creation narrative in the Bible is true, why is science so woefully wrong on this one point?"
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg [young-earth creationism and intelligent design are both blasphemous.]: http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2011/04/young-earth-creationism-and-intelligent.html